Photo Credit: Sathorn Station (Bangkok BRT) – By Sry85
Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=10564534
This article was originally published in the Bangkok Post, 27 April 2017.
The Rapid Transit Bus, more commonly known as the BRT, is the brainchild of former governor of Bangkok Apirak Kosayodhin as a cheaper alternative to the BTS skytrain and the MRT Subway. There were five routes planned, but only the Sathorn-Ratchapruek route was constructed and began operation in 2010. While it was often criticized for appropriating a street lane, it was decently well-received as an alternative transport option especially during rush hours.
Despite its popularity with commuters, it was slated for closure by the BMA (Bangkok Metropolitan Administration) in February [2017] because up to then, it was suffering an annual deficit of 200 million baht. Moreover, daily passengers numbered only 15,000 – 25,000 users, a serious shortfall from the 35,000 commuters the BMA had projected. However, at the end of March [2017], after netizens and commuters had voiced disagreement, the BMA reversed their decision and permitted it to continue.
Despite the reversal, this service’s days may be numbered, as the Bangkok governor intends to only keep the BRT running until a replacement service is established. However, there is a place for the BRT in the Bangkok public transportation network, especially if its key issues are addressed and improvements to the system are made.
In defense of the BRT
Before discussing measures to improve the BRT, it is worth exploring the benefits it provides in order to understand why the BRT warrants attention and support.
Saving Space
One very popular misconception regarding the BRT is the notion that traffic congestion is worsened by the BRT taking over a lane of traffic. While the premise of having more road space to reduce congestion seems logical at first glance, multiple studies have established an intrinsic fallacy. The concept centers on an effect called “generated traffic”. The idea is that when there is more road space, commuters are encouraged to use the route instead of an alternate path or alternate means of transportation, causing the expanded street to quickly be filled and reduce most if not all of the benefits from the anticipated traffic reduction.
A typical BRT bus holds approximately 40 people, thereby using the space normally taken up by two-to-three full cars. The reality, however, is that most cars on Bangkok streets are occupied by a single person, the driver, causing the street to be filled by only 40 people. Having one lane taken away by the buses so they can more efficiently transport a large number of passengers is a far better use of space than letting it be flooded by 10 cars stuck in gridlock. Thus, the time-saving effected afforded by the exclusive lane makes the BRT an attractive transportation option. A 2012 study by Professors Graham Currie and Majid Sarvi of Monash University, Australia shows that even minor time savings of less than 20 percent by buses will significantly increase ridership at up to 50 percent. This certainly seems to be the case for the BRT, because one of the most referenced reason to continue the BRT service in the recent BMA survey was its ability to transport quickly during rush hours.
Comparing space use for 40 people between cars, bicycles, and a bus.
(Source: thebusblog.ridedart.com)
User Benefits
As the BRT is a public service, its main objective should be to benefit its users. In 2010, Assit. Prof. Dr. Thaned Satiennam from the faculty of engineering of Khon Kaen University calculated the cost to the users as a consequence of traffic congestion—including time cost, operating cost, and cost of accidents—concluded that the BRT has the potential to reduce all such costs by almost 10 billion baht annually. His calculation included the four other BRT lines that never came to be, but even if we reduce the benefits by a factor of 10 to reflect the one realized BRT line and the low turnover, the benefit the BRT brings to the citizens is still almost one billion baht annually. This is far higher than the burden BMA has to carry, especially now that measures to offset the deficit are being implemented.
Simple and Inexpensive Infrastructure
The infrastructure necessary for the BRT to operate is relatively inexpensive and simple when compared to other systematic public transportation such as BTS and the MRT. It took less than two billion baht (around 80-120 million baht per kilometer) and one year to build the entire 16.5 kilometer BRT infrastructure whereas the BTS cost 25 billion baht—approximately 1.4 billion baht per kilometer—and half a decade to build a system of similar length. At three billion baht per kilometer, the MRT is even more expensive to construct due to the need to tunnel and build mechanisms underground.
Improving the BRT
It is not surprising that motorists would harbor resentment towards the BRT when they see that the lanes they felt were taken from them remain largely empty throughout the day while they are constantly stuck in traffic. BRT’s five-minute delays between buses during peak hours and 10+ minutes during off-peak service not only invite criticism that the BRT isn’t using its lane effectively, it also turn away potential users who prioritize speed. BMA could easily remedy this inefficiency by reducing bus intervals to two to three minutes in peak hours and five minutes otherwise through doubling the buses in service from 25 to 50 cars; this would likely cost no more than 200 million baht, as one BRT bus costs seven million baht, according to China BRT database. This would not only address the criticism but discourage trespassers from encroaching on the BRT lane. However, BMA should also deter would-be trespassers with a better detection system and stricter punishment to ensure that violators are penalized for their actions.
A seemingly minor issue that might discourage use of the BRT is the inconvenience of transitioning between different transportation systems. Queuing to buy tickets twice, especially during rush hours is unpleasant. Making the Rabbit card valid for both the BTS and the BRT is a step in the right direction. The next step is to make one-time tickets usable on multiple services. This means that a revamp of the ticketing system for the services may be in order.
The BRT’s confinement to the Sathorn area hurts its value as a public transport and does not give a complete picture of what the BRT model is capable of achieving. The BMA should consider expanding its services, since the BRT has less infrastructure needs. It can also penetrate areas other public transport cannot serve such as smaller streets and tourist attractions where large infrastructure can obscure the location’s aesthetics. Alternatively, it can supplement other public transport services by reducing crowding, especially for the BTS and the MRT which are both approaching overcapacity. The BRT can even share the infrastructure with regular buses for rapid expansion. Furthermore, regular buses can upgrade their standards to levels similar to the BRT and become part of the network. Either way, navigating the city by bus would become much more organized and approachable.
Whether if BMA’s end goal is to reduce traffic congestion or to make Bangkok more connected through public transport, expansion to the scope and accessibility of said public transport is unsurprisingly an essential process. To that end, the BRT has proven itself to be a valuable asset even if it is viewed unfavorably by some groups of people. It would be wise for BMA to re-evaluate the value of the BRT and take steps to realize its potential before it’s too late, especially now that the BRT has become much more financially viable by increasing the fare to 15 baht and reduce operating cost by approximately 70 million baht.
References:
http://www.chinabrt.org/ (List of notable BRT services) (in Mandarin)
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/general/1200281/commuters-to-help-decide-fate-of-brt-service (BRT faces possibility of closing down)
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/general/1206569/bangkok-gives-thumbs-up-to-ailing-brt (leaked poll shows ppl want BRT)
http://www.iges.or.jp/en/archive/cp/pdf/activity20101108/07_Thaned.pdf (user benefits from BRT)
http://daily.khaosod.co.th/view_news.php?newsid=TUROaVoyc3dNVEV5TURjMU9RPT0=§ionid=TURNek1nPT0=&day=TWpBeE5pMHdOeTB4TWc9PQ== (In Thai) (BTS extensions have net loss)
http://www.ceat.or.th/2010/index.php/traffic-a-transport/269-elevated-train-bearing-samut-prakan-project-.html (Cost of a BTS extension project)
http://www.academia.edu/26360051/Obstacles_to_the_Creation_of_Successful_Bus_Rapid_Transit_Systems_The_Case_of_Bangkok (Why BKK BRT failed) (2016)
http://www.vtpi.org/blw.pdf (justification for dedicated lanes) (2016)
http://www.vtpi.org/gentraf.pdf (generated traffic and induced travel) (2017)
http://www.manager.co.th/QOL/ViewNews.aspx?NewsID=9500000006235 (2007) (in thai) Comparing BTS&BRT cost/km
https://www.alibaba.com/showroom/city-bus.html (bus prices)
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/general/1222470/city-hall-opts-to-keep-brt-running (BRT “saved”)
http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation/content/downloadables/spaced_out-bates_leibling-jul12.pdf (Cars are parked 95-96 percent of the time)
http://www.accessmagazine.org/articles/fall-2016/do-cities-have-too-much-parking/ (parking land usage)
